obama (cont.)
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > obama (cont.)
Posted on Feb 20, 2008 08:19 am
dbmasters
Administrator Since: Apr 03, 2002
Please tell me I am not the only one that see's Barack's wife's comment as incredibly stupid...
"for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country"
whoa...in effect saying she has no pride in the men and women that rescued people from the falling twin towers, the men and women that do that every day, the soldiers in Iraq that toppled a despot, took power away from the Taliban...no pride in the country that millions of people try to get into every year for a chance at a future that is not available where they are from, for the billions and billions in foreign aid.
Wow...I suppose it will be blown over in the media cuz Obama is the golden boy, man, if Laura Bush would have said that tho...watch out!
Then, a couple days ago my email from the Hillary campaign...
"Let's show them what we are made of, donate now!"
argh, how lame...
[ Back to Top ]
Feb 20, 2008 09:00 am i see it as stupid, but i also see it as a sort of taking it out of context thing. anytime someone who has basic intelligence says something that is clearly not a good thing to say, there's a better than even chance it's not what they were really trying to say. the statement is vague enough to be taken in several different ways. someone saw a way to exploit it. there are better things to criticize the obamas about.
IMO the best things to latch onto are not the petty things that are clearly not what's up, but rather the more basic things. we live in a worllllld of spin, you know.
Feb 20, 2008 09:01 am p.s. why are you getting emails from H?
Feb 20, 2008 09:03 am I get regular emails from all three of the candidates that matter.
Oh, check your email, forty.
It's a world of spin, yes, but somebody wanting to occupy the white house really should at least have a minimum requirement of liking their country.
Feb 20, 2008 09:12 am you can call her on that if you feel like it. but i think she must like her country until she clearly says something to hint otherwise. i wouldnt go looking for reasons to assume even if i were a repub. we've all said things that can be taken in several ways. if you really think about the statement, it looks like just an unfortunate way to phrase something way more basic. that said, dumb to let it slip. gotta be more careful when you're under the microscope.
k, checking email...
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Feb 20, 2008 09:19 am hey man... I'm getting calls to house Hillery's staffers... I'M A **** 'N REGISTERED REPUBLICAN!!!
Feb 20, 2008 09:19 am All I am saying is that it was incredibly stupid, like you said, there are bigger issues at hand than that, such as a lack of experience and not being even close to ready for the job of president, but still, wow, very, very stupid.
Very stupid strategerie.
Feb 20, 2008 09:43 am yeah that was a slip, a bit of thoughtlessness. i assume she digs america, though. i have no evidence to the contrary. the spin here came from elsewhere.
you could point to something obama is doing to mccain that's kind of similar. he keeps talking about mccain's 100 year war. mccain never said that, though. he was talking about an occupation, a skeleton force. mccain made a poorly thought out sentence several months ago, and look at how it's stuck.
i think both right and left have the 'right' to utilize each of these statements, this kind of thing. there's nothing unfair about it. it is misleading, though, and i just don't want to see too much of it coming up here in the gen election.
i think obama and mccain both tend towards not being negative. and this is one of the few obvious spins i can think of coming from obama, this 100 years thing. i have seen mccain be pressured to go negative before (its one of the oft-cited reasons why people pulled away from him in 2000: when mccain goes negative, he stops 'seeming like mccain.' it's just not the way he really wants to be, and you can tell.) so anyway, it;s been said that this could be a very civil gen election campaign coming up here. somehow i doubt it. i just would hope that we can avoid the totally stupid distractions and spins that have plagued every election since i've been conscious. i hope that obama is something of a force in preventing that, because i think that when it happens we all lose.
i am much about elevating the discussion, getting it to the point where spin and distortions don't dominate the discussion. real ideas are way more fun.
Feb 20, 2008 09:46 am come on, elections are never about real ideas, their about who you hate less...and why they are less evil than their opponent.
get with the program, forty.
Feb 20, 2008 09:51 am oh i enjoy the emotions too. i think emotion is sometimes a valid decision-making tool. with obama's nomination, for example, dems might actually have made the only correct choice here by going with their gut. the alternative was hillary after all.
but when emotions become, like, the story, and people stop making real points, sometimes i feel like i'm watching two kindergarteners slap each other. i hate that and i hope we dont have to see much of that. distraction is the only appropriate word for that
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Feb 20, 2008 01:13 pm Honestly, it was a dumb/shortsighted thing to say. But me personally, I try not to get too caught up in the significant others of those running for president, as they are not the one's I'm electing.
Feb 20, 2008 04:04 pm I'm curious, is there anyone here that can say that out of the front runners right now, are the front runner that they were wishing for?
Feb 20, 2008 05:04 pm as recently as december i didn't have a preference. in 2004, i was for clark from the moment he announcced, so this time around it was different.
Feb 20, 2008 05:50 pm I was thinking that may be the case. From everyone I have talked to, no one seems to want the two choices that we have now.
Hate to ask, but can we just start all over again? This time with a candidate that we can all get behind.
Feb 20, 2008 09:58 pm i'm ok with the choices we have.
Feb 21, 2008 04:43 am cuz mccain and obama are both post-partisan (mccain a little less so, but he's got that about him too). that's what i want to see right now. people who are not afraid to occasionally stand up for common sense and who are not afraid to govern in a way that maybe takes a step away from their constituency. who are not governing for their constituency first and foremost but for something bigger and more important than that.
not to say it would last. but there are times in history where it happens. a reset button is pressed and people are reminded that they're actually all americans first of all. both obama and mccain (to some extent) stand for that.
so that's automatic this time around (asssuming hillary doesn't get the nomination) and i think that's good. that's what i want.
Feb 21, 2008 08:00 am Yeah, I saw that, to me, that confirms my worst fears...Obama isn't a politician, he's a cult leader.
Feb 21, 2008 08:04 am he's a politician, but some people are taking it too far. you've got to place the blame on the people.
Feb 21, 2008 08:08 am That I agree with...OK, he's had a cult created around him, that I'll buy...
Feb 21, 2008 08:18 am yeah and maybe more than that, too. if we had been at the rally, we just would have seen a guy blow his nose and then a pretty normal response. it's a campaign rally. people are there for the guy, he's the sole focus, and the crowd's job is to applaud, so...what are they gonna do? this story is happening at the intersection of a normal crowd response and the backlash against what are incredible attendance numbers. so many stories are created and then just slapped down on a paper plate in front of us, and we're all supposed to get disgusted and outraged. the times did it yesterday with mccain.
the mental environment, the memesphere, is everyone's worst enemy.
the media takes stuff and makes it into something weird.
Feb 21, 2008 08:20 am Yeah, thats true, I remember playing large parties and the crowd would cheer is one of us lit a smoke, took a pull of a pipe or anything...so yeah, you have a point I guess.
I do think in large part the left is really overcorrecting for what it feels the Bush admin has done, or is doing wrong...I mean whipping themselves up into a frenzy and going a bit too far the other way.
Feb 21, 2008 08:26 am yeah i'm not sure how much bush that is, really, though. seems like the excitement is more about this idea of being post-partisan, that is, not governing to and only to your constituency, ending the black and white us vs. them rhetoric. i do think obama is hostile to bush, but not to republicans.
i kind of think the dems's angry bush backlash happened in 2004. this time around, many people are 'ok' with mccain and they think he is honest, and peeps know bush is going away now. so i don't feel this is about bush, really.
i gotta say this nose story cracks me up anyway. sometimes you can't blame the media for what they do. there's no way to resist this story.
Feb 21, 2008 08:28 am Cuz they left won't be partisan?
Come on now...
The nose thing is funny though, I gotta agree with you there.
Feb 21, 2008 08:36 am no there will still be partisanship definitely, but i think the way things are discussed can change when the leader is kind of setting an example. apparently obama is not just all talk with this. this description of him meshes with what i'm sensing:
"He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."
obsidianwings.blogs.com/o...a-actually.html
see, i just value in a leader the capability to just be very even-keel. i think there's a fight going on in the country and i think this guy really wants to be the parent who says 'grow up.' as much as i like that stuff (i listen to savage and enjoy it) i also don't want it being a part of actual politics. i think that a 'blank projection screen' is what might be called for here. get a guy onto whom people can project their higher american ideals, and i think they will, because we all have it in us. it's almost like we've been waiting to have a license to do it. that's what this is about for me. i don't agree with some of obama's policies, but this is the theme i'm getting, the larger idea, and i actually totally approve of it. it might be naive in a sense, but only if you think he's kidding or is going to get cynical immediately. i have no evidence that he would. he seems to have lived his life this way, so...
Feb 21, 2008 08:41 am At the same time, McCain, while I wouldn't use the word "even keel" to describe him by any means, he has a pretty well documented history of reaching across party lines as well.
So much so it's pissed a lot of people off.
Feb 21, 2008 08:45 am yeah he does, that's one of the reasons i've been cool with mccain generally. he seems to be a pretty independent thinker. i think his flip flop on bush's taxes is the one thing i can think of that looks obviously politically expedient to me right now.
JDODBrother Number OneMember
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Feb 21, 2008 10:21 am Oh for christ's sake, all this right wing tripe isn't still going on is it.
Feb 21, 2008 10:23 am I gotta start banning left wingers...
of course being a music related site, that would wind up being a lions share of the membership I suppose...
whats with artists and stupid political viewpoints?
;-)
Feb 21, 2008 12:11 pm On Wednesday, according to the Associated Press, Michelle Obama clarified her Monday remarks in an interview with a Rhode Island TV station. "What I was clearly talking about was that I'm proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process," she said. "For the first time in my lifetime, I'm seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven't seen and really trying to figure this out -- and that's the source of pride that I was talking about."
Feb 22, 2008 05:58 am www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
if you are capable of reading this and stripping out the leftist sullivan's judgments about the right, you might see a real point herein.
consider this quote, which is bound to appear scary on the surface to some but which makes real sense *if its a given* that the other things that matter in a president are present in obama:
"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."
Feb 22, 2008 08:24 am Yes, there is a valid point there, though not one I think should be considered a reason to vote him to what is arguably the most powerful man in the world.
Right now I am waiting to see who his running mate is...Hillary I doubt would accept it, I have heard he is talking with Edwards and if he chooses Edwards he completely 100% loses any interest or support I had for him...which isn't much, but that would decide it for me.
It's to a point now where running mates matter...this increases my interest in McCain too, to see which side he rolls to, he will either pick somebody to aim for the conservatives, maybe Romney, or somebody to truly demonstrate a moderate position...my boss yesterday suggested Leiberman or somebody of his ilk, which would be really interesting.
Feb 22, 2008 04:26 pm yeah i agree, that wouldn't be enough of a reason in itself, but it's a huge plus. it's a strange sort of 'i told you so' weapon, a weapon of the mind. imagine all the fundamentalist people who got comfortable with their own image of america over the years, and then we throw this at them. the hussein obama part would be particularly puzzling to our enemies. they'd be like 'wait a second, what? who is america?' and we'd be like 'you don't understand what america is.'
it's interesting what mmccain will do, because there's good reason for going in either direction.
Feb 22, 2008 05:33 pm [quote]he has a pretty well documented history of reaching across party lines as well.
So much so it's pissed a lot of people off.[/quote]
"We must come together as a nation. Republicans, Democrats and John McCain..."
Feb 23, 2008 08:31 am i'm drinking and i want to give kudos...
one of the craziest things about this forum is that i've never gotten into a fight here, really. some minor tangles over roethlisberger, but due to drinking on my part.
this is crazy. everyone's really passionate about their beliefs at HRC, and yet somehow--incredibly!--it never turns into myspace!
JDODBrother Number OneMember
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Feb 26, 2008 05:43 am Thats really terrible. Although I did once read a story about someone who sought someone out after an argument on a forum and killed them.
I know Hilary professed to be a Christian quite early on, has Obama done anything like that yet?
Feb 26, 2008 06:32 am Obama did that A LONG time ago as I recall in answer to his Muslim heritage...didn't he?
JDODBrother Number OneMember
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Feb 26, 2008 06:39 am Its rediculous that he has to and eqaully rediculous that he has to make an answer to his Muslim heritage.
Feb 26, 2008 06:52 am I don't find it that ridiculous at all...by and large the US is a Christian nation who's laws and culture are basically centered around common Judeo-Christian values, which are very different from the basic Muslim culture, not to mention Muslim cultures attitude toward women and children, which is very opposed to how the US views them.
My state elected a Muslim to office and he's been a non-stop pain in the *** since taking office.
I don't think I'd vote for a Muslim because I completely disagree with their value system. I would have little problem with most religions, and actually would have voted for Mit Romney, but I can't say the same for a Muslim, personally.
Feb 26, 2008 06:54 am he's belonged to the same christian church for a really long time. the mainstream media--even mainstream right wingers--are playing that fair.
sorry if peeps don't wanna keep this thread going, but i'm reading one of his books right now, and i have to say: although i have some probs with O's policies and his basic POV on defense and taxing, his perspectives on what the constitution is and what it's supposed to be is something i've never really heard described so well. it's really the main thing that's been bothering me for years, the trashing of the process of governance. i think a lot of people are into him because their definition of what america is and is supposed to be is really their main issue these days. and its sort of like they're voting for an idea.
if you can get into political philosophy, check out audacity of hope. it's been described by some as boring, but i'm liking it. he really isn't about empty words, it's just a rhetorical tactic for the primaries. this book is kind of a deep but easily readable meditation on what america is supposed to be, and yes, i'm getting a feeling of authenticity from that angle. one thought i keep coming back to as i read it is that republicans are going to be nodding their heads to some of this. he is a big liberal, no doubt about it. but he respects something that i think is more important than left vs right, something i think we've been encouraged to forget.
JDODBrother Number OneMember
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Feb 26, 2008 07:29 am People's religious (or lack thereof) should be completly separate from their politics. It seems odd to me that someone would loose votes down to their religion when theor policy could be perfectly sound.
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Feb 26, 2008 07:42 am most protestants consider your religion to be your personal code of ethics. So if you can separate your actions from your ethics it scares the crap out of a lot of people.
Feb 26, 2008 07:50 am I would suggest that nobody has the right to tell anyone else on what their vote should be based. The separation of church and state is correct in concept, but impossible in reality, your religion can, in large part, tell people what your basic beliefs, positions and opinions are.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Feb 26, 2008 08:33 am Yikes! Religion. Viewing that term in political terms as many special interest groops, no I don't want that. I already have a president whose strings are pulled by special interest groups. Viewing the term in a broader sense supporting "One Nation under God"; yes I do want that. I will vote with a heavly weighted focus on my perception of the candidates spiritual fitness. At the simplest level that is how it works. If the majority of people in this land don't want to play cards, and don't want to see card playing going on, then so it shall be. Conversely, if we all want to be drug dealing, self seeking, street rule, we can appoint an overseer that will support our collective desires.
Feb 26, 2008 08:33 am right or wrong, it's simply unrealistic to think that america would be cool with a muslim president right now, jdod. it doesn't say anything bad about america, either. it's a natural response to this moment in history. it's not a global judgment on muslims, and it doesn't say anything about what the future may bring. but to suspect any different reaction right now from the masses is just not realistic.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Feb 26, 2008 08:40 am Man, I just don't think like others do. I saw that and thought, cool! We need someone who has a solid understanding of that culture as we are having so many difficulties with that culture right now. Our current mantality of WaaaHoooo! Crusade Time!, is just not working so well, at least per my perception.
Feb 26, 2008 08:42 am Yeah, having a Muslim could stand to confuse the hell out of the part of the world that hates us, with a Muslim as the face of the US they would be hating themselves, which would be confusing...and possibly help us.
I just can't go there tho...
Feb 26, 2008 08:46 am well obama would bring some of that, as sullivan says, even though he's christian. just because of his name, and multinational origin.
i was just commenting on what others would be likely to think about the idea JDOD brought up. just can't imagine most of america going for that right now.
Feb 26, 2008 08:47 am i mean heck it's nearly impossible if not impossible for an atheist to go very far in government right now. that is something i would like to change, btw.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Feb 26, 2008 09:16 am It has changed Forty. The government is full of atheists, only none of them are honest enough to admit it.
JDODBrother Number OneMember
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Feb 26, 2008 09:37 am I wasn't really saying that you should vote for a Muslim, more that if someones religous views are not in agreement with the masses then they will not get votes even if their policies are 2nd to none.
An atheist candidate is another obvious one. There are large portions of society that would not support and athesist purely on the basis that he/she is an atheist and regardless of the policy. Separation of state and church could and should happen.
There's an odd one in the mix though, Mormonism. On the face of it its just something that was made up 180 years ago by a bonkers farmer but it seems to be politically acceptable in a way that Islam, Atheism, homosexuality, disability etc etc. are not. Not sure quite why that is. Maybe 'cos its very concentrated in some areas even though it is probably virtually non-existent in others.
I suppose things will change as the propotion of knuckle draggers decreases. Historically you would never have had a woman or a black person as a potential president. Now you have both.
Feb 26, 2008 09:41 am So a religious person is a knuckle dragger then? I find that highly insulting and ignorant...and makes you a complete and total hypocrite as you are judging based on the same reasoning you are telling religous people not to. You judge because of religion.
One can often tell a large part of what a person stands for by their religious affiliation, or lack of it. Obviously not 100% accurate, but it's a good indicater.
JDODBrother Number OneMember
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Feb 26, 2008 10:13 am No, I was calling someone who would discriminate against someone for their religion (or lack thereof) sexual preferance, ethnicity or disability a knuckle dragger.
I dont think you can really tell what someone is like by their religious affiliation.
José Efraín Ríos Montt was a born again Christian.
Idi Amin was a Catholic.
Chairman Mao was to all intents and purposes an Atheist. As was Stalin I think even though he was born Orthadox
Ne Win was a Bhuddist.
Can't remember a historical Jewish butcher off the top of my head (aside from the God of the Old Testament) but I'm sure there must be one.
Feb 26, 2008 10:15 am Which is exactly why I said it's not 100% accurate, nothing is 100% accurate, but if you have even 100 more examples, it's still an EXTREME minority overall.
I am perfectly within my rights to like or dislike somebody for whatever reason I see fit, just as you are within yours to do the same...that said, people I dislike I generally have plenty of reasons for outside of any obvious stereotypes.
JDODBrother Number OneMember
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Feb 26, 2008 10:29 am Exactly thats fine, I dislike lots of people for lots of different reasons. But I dont dislike them purely based on their religion, sex, sexuality, race or ethnicity 'cos that would be stupid (show knuckle dragging tendancies :o) ).
I know the examples I gave are extreme but what I was trying to convey is people are people regardless. I think if you took 100 people from each pool you would find a similar proportion of wankers in each one.
Of the Christians I know some are cool some are dickheads, same with all the Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Atheists. There seems to be a similar proportion of arseholes in each group in my experience.
I dont know many Bhuddists, saying that I did have a few drinks with a Bhuddist recently (rather oddly in Austria) and he was a nice bloke.
Feb 26, 2008 11:14 am Whether or not a like a person is a completely different subject from whether or not I want them marrying my sister, be a business partner with me, or to be the president of my country.
I have many friends I wouldn't want marrying my sister (she did marry one of them once), many people I'll have a drink with and have fun with but NEVER get into business will, and NEVER will I want a guy that believes women are second class citizens and the my daughters shouldn't be educated or should cover themselves in public be the president of my country, even if he seems to be a nice bloke.
JDODBrother Number OneMember
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Feb 26, 2008 11:30 am Well obviously you wouldn't want a blantant sexist to be president. In that respect I think the media representation of Islam is only portraying the extreme not the normal, none of the Muslims I know that I see as friends are, on the whole, more or less sexist than the general population.
Yes, there are some warped bastards out there dictating their own predjudiced views on their countries but I dont think thats based on their religion.
Its just their predjudiced views and they interpret their religion to fit in with their own predjudices, in the same way that many figures in the Christian Church do.
JDODBrother Number OneMember
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Feb 26, 2008 11:31 am If someone was that sexist I wouldn't think they were a nice bloke either.
Feb 27, 2008 05:45 am "It has changed Forty. The government is full of atheists, only none of them are honest enough to admit it."
--they don't admit it because it's political suicide. atheists are looked down upon when it comes to politics. there's no reason for it. jefferson was a deist as were many of the founders, and they're some of our greatest presidents, and their perspective was as close as you can come to atheism without really saying the word. back then, it was default. god set up the world and then left it, leaving us to our rationality, and to trust in our rationality.
these days we get nervous hand-raising when the question 'do you believe in evolution' is asked. that offends me. science is science. it does not preclude religion, although religion may have to 'bend' to stay attached to the real world.
i care about reality and i want to see healthy religion that doesn't deny the obvious. when candidates feel they have to lie about their beliefs just to appeal to the religious majority, that really bugs me. belief in a god should not be a criteria for office. it should be a secondary thing and a personal thing.
Feb 27, 2008 06:29 am "obvious" is a relative state...
Quote:
jefferson was a deist as were many of the founders
...for that matter most of the founding fathers were also Freemasons, and that as well doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists from trashing that group, accusing them of horrible and disgusting things at times, so it's not like atheists are the only unfairly treated group that one is sometimes best just not talking about.
Feb 27, 2008 07:44 am i have no idea really what freemasons really are. i'm sure that's common. i've tried to have people explain it to me. i decided long ago (checking into it here and there) that the conspiracy theories about them were BS.
there's nothing unobvious about the evidence behind evolution. it's right in everyone's faces. a healthy religion that would really feed people's hunger for spirituality and connection to god would not seek to deny god's own evidence. i think that religion hurts itself when it denies what's obvious, and last time i checked, the vatican agreed with me. didn't they say evolution was 'true' recently?
Feb 27, 2008 07:48 am No, they said the theories coyuld live peacefully side by side.
That said, I believe that as well, to me the possible common ground can be found in how long a "day" of creation was...I do believe, without a single doubt in I.D. but I also believe (as is obvious to me personally) that evolution does happen, I don't think, however, that we have actually evolved from a single celled organism.
As far as what Freemasonry is, it's quite simple, a group of guys that simply encourage each other to be good, moral, charitable people...and help society where they see it needs help without publically patting themselves on the back for it or other such personal gain. Which is why conspiracies evolve, the org does not respond, the org simply does what it sees needing to be done, such as build hospitals for burn vicitims and kids with speicific diseases for free treatment...the Shriners...yet ya never see "look what we did" ads, because Masons don't do that.
Which is why I have chose to become one.
Feb 27, 2008 08:05 am well that's cool about masons, then.
but you can't just pick and choose from evolution. for religion and evolution to coexist, there are real leaps you to make. you have to basically take on a deist point of view and propose that god built the rules and laws of the universe and then just let things run. it's ok, because god can still exist, his methods just become different than what's usually accepted by religious peeps.
to me, if there's actually a god, then denying the evidence he's laid out before us is heresy. it's like saying 'i'm not listening to to what you're showing me, god; instead i'm going to listen to what men are telling me.' if there's a language god speaks in (if there is a god) it's evidence. you can not go wrong with that, because the alternative is that god is actively lying to people by planting evidence.
not trying to start an argument. was drinking as of one hour ago. i just like this idea. the evidence that all life on earth is related to all other life is solid. the first cell on earth was your great grandfather, and there are better-than-good reasons to believe that. if a god did that, then it means he's ever so slightly more stupifyingly amazing than religions themselves would paint him as being. giving a god credit for evolution and accepting evolution makes god all that more mysterious and powerful.
i have always believed that if you're really looking for god, you're cool with unanswered questions. 'god as a question' rather than an answer. that makes us humble and reflects, to me, something real about he gulf between us two entities. it seems better.
Feb 27, 2008 08:26 am Ummmmm, no, it's not what is usually accepted, it is what is written in the Bible, directly written, that is where it gets sticky with some, that would say the Bible is wrong/lies, and that is where people freak out.
Actually, I can pick and choose, I have been doing that with everything my entire life, I do believe there is truth in everything, I also believe there is untruths in everything...including religion and science.
Ummmm, how does evolution and the Masons have to do with an Obama thread? :-)
Feb 27, 2008 09:05 am well you can actually extract 'truth' from everything, and that is one way in which religion is good. at the same time, though, the planet has only one history, and something specific happened at the dawn of time--not two things and not something fuzzy and undefined-- and it's potentially knowable.
you can pick and choose from evolution, but you won't end up with a coherent argument at the end of the day. maybe that doesn't matter to everyone, but it does to many, cuz you undermine the whole enterprise if you're not rigorous with it. u can't choose parts of evolution to believe in. it all fits together. if you believe in microevolution, you must believe in macroevolution, because it follows directly from it (it takes about 10 pages to explain how if you've never heard it before).
but whatever, i really don't care what people believe. i just don't like that its considered inappropriate for an atheist to hold high office. that bothers me.
it has nothing to do with an obama thread. i forget how this happened.
Feb 27, 2008 09:09 am Quote:
but you won't end up with a coherent argument at the end of the day. maybe that doesn't matter to everyone
baddabing, thats me right there, I really don't care enough to bother...how it all started really doesn't matter one tiny bit...what matter is what's now and what's coming...what's past doesn't...other than trying not to repeat the same stupid stupid mistakes.
Feb 27, 2008 09:20 am hahahahaha thats awesome
Feb 27, 2008 09:26 am hahaha enjoy. this is my new tactic of defusing a contentious debate with a swank comedy VSTi
Mar 08, 2008 06:00 am hahah jeezus
www.idreamofhillaryidreamofbarack.com/
this is a site that records user-submitted dreams about hillary and obama. as an attemmpt to gauge what the subconscious mood about these two figures is, in the country. some funny stuff here! here's one:
Keanu Reeves was voted in as the next President of the United States. He was giving his acceptance speech, dressed in jeans and a hoodie. He looked good, but we were all shocked. How did he win? Did we even know he was running? I set about urgently painting him a sign, twelve metres long, with a too-dry paint brush, reminding him of all the things he had to remember: Prioritize education. Provide medicare. Cap corporate profits. The environment! There were two brief interruptions as we fielded interviewed reactions from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They were both equally stumped. They didn't know he was running, but were gracious losers.
Mar 10, 2008 09:16 am
Mar 10, 2008 09:20 am Hahahaha, that's great.
Ya know, on your above post, one thing I never will understand is why the left is so anti-corporation..."Cap corporate profits" is something I hear pretty frequently, and simply don't understand why it's bad for America to have healthy corporate entities.
Then those same people will get pissed when they outsource their entire company and move someplace else.
I will never understand that logic...
Mar 10, 2008 09:26 am im glad you like barackheart! you dont have to agree with his policies, hopefully, to appreciate my photoshopping? next task is to get hillary and mccain in there in the flames behind him, yelling.
you mean 'anti-corporation?' i understand something about that. it comes from emotionality. i'm republican on that issue. but i used to read adbusters. if you pick up a copy of adbusters, you'll understand the anti-corporate thinking.
personally i think there has to be a balance, pure and simple. corporations should thrive, and people have to, too. at times this means stepping in and holding back a greedy corporate entity, and at other times it involves telling common people what's in their best interest. i believe that complexity theory is the best lens to look through when looking at economy. no ideology: the goal should be equilibrium, constantly, whatever that involves. if it hurts workers sometimes, fine. if it hurts corps sometimes, also fine.
constant tinkering. want to keep everyone healthy, and it involves tradeoffs...
but yeah, the anti-corp thing is just pure thoughtlessnenss. it's all over the left. people don't read, so they fall prey to feelings.
Mar 10, 2008 09:32 am oops, anti- yes, corrected!
No, I will never understand it, there should be no tinkering, the free market works best when left alone and let supply, demand and competition run the system.
Thriving companies mean expansion, more jobs and better products...if supply, demand and competition run it.
Mar 10, 2008 10:08 am
im a llittle drinky, but i tried to insert the two other candidates. i made mccain bigger, since hillary sucks more than he does, and is a little *****.
i have read a lot about complexity theory and its effects in the world at large, and its certain as far as i can tell that the economy is what's called a complex adaptive system. those types of systems absolutely have to be flexible or else they get 'locked up.' if there's too much top=down control, or too much bottom-up freedom, the system simply dies. there are countless examples of it throughout nature. real complexeity--where novelty happens--happens at the edge of chaos and order. life itself is one such example of this. if 'life' was 'republican' (or democrat) then nothing would have ever happened to get anything off the ground.
the WAR is the thing. the tensions that are introduced encourages innovation. but set it one way, and innovation fails.
you should check out complexity theory, it has real consequences for politics and stands completely above liberal and conservative categories. any title with 'complexity' (in the science section of the bookstore) will be interesting. it's been a buzzword for a few years, but it's interesting in that it was impossible to discover before there were computers.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Mar 10, 2008 12:54 pm Ok, forty, this is what I don't understand... if you like obama, how can you like mccain more than hillary. I'm not a hillary fan, but her stated policy standpoints are much, much more closer to barack's then mccain's. This is something I just cannot understand.
As for letting the market do it's thing... well, to begin with, our "market" is not a free market, in terms of classic economic theory, so we should not expect free market results. That's also why we can't rely on the "free market" because our economy doesn't exist in one...
Plus, when we've had "free markets" in the past, we've ended up with crazy monopolies and all sorts of wacky stuff. Now with all that being said, I'm not anti corporation or anti corporations making profit, but I am anti corporations who only focus on profit as a bottom line and don't take into account the interests of the communities or environment within which they exist.
Mar 10, 2008 12:57 pm But that is where the market works, if the corp doesn't support the community, the community doesn't support the corp...it works both ways. The free market can work...of course at the point we are at now it'd be tough to go back...but still, and it works...crops pay employees what they will work for, charge what people will pay, put out a better product than the competition for better value...it works.
Mar 10, 2008 07:05 pm coolo, it would take too long to explain why i would vote for mccain and not hillary. some people may disagree with my grounds for it, too, though i swear it's supportable :)
what you're saying about the market, though, is close to what i would argue. if there are no controls in place, it's as bad as if there are too many controls. having some controls in place actually forces companies to compete and innovate. when corporations are 'threatened' by competition (via ground rules that encourage the emergence of competitors) then companies are forced to work better and more efficiently, and to innovate. there must be pressure, that is the key thing. anything that reduces pressures is ultimately harmful to economies.
a healthy and cutthroat capitalistic economy needs some leftist strictures, to avoid cutting off its own blood supply. the principle is everywhere in nature. pure chaos is 'uninteresting,' like random radio static. pure order is uninteresting, like a uniformly structured crystal. it is only at the border between order and chaos that you get complexity, things like good economies, and even life itself.
here's some sort of article about some business applications for complexity.
www.strategy-business.com/press/16635507/15099
Mar 10, 2008 07:14 pm Anti-monopolistic control is one I can actually swallow and understand, but price capping, wage dictating, corporate welfare such as tax breaks for expanding in somebody's area and the sort of other **** we have going on are not good overall.
I don't believe in tax breaks for anyone on anything for any reason that is brought about by choice...you choose to grow your business, you choose to get married, choose to have kids, choose to farm for a living...you shouldn't be rewarded or punished for any of it...just pay your taxes accordingly.
Note to self - add the "Single Muslim Women" Google ad this thread brought up to the ad filter... :-D
Jun 09, 2008 08:02 am obama impromptu behind the scenes victory speech to staff at headquarters
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jun 09, 2008 08:47 am That was a wonderful talk.
It's funny; A very close friend's son, now in high school called last night and wanted to interview me for a class project he is doing in the Vietnam War. He prosed it as an "interview". The concept was to get a Vietnam Vet's "take" on that war. After the 45 minute interview, I exited with a renewed sensation of my utter distrust for our government and politicians. I have been lied to by our government for 40 years. Hidden agendas, ommisions of truth, flat out, unbelievably blatent lies. Everyone I have talked to since the demise of the Clintons sited one reason for celibration that they were defeated. They all cited at least one lie that just pushed them over the edge.
I really miss believing at least some of what I hear, but my history tells me I can not.
